Commentary

Just an Online Minute... A Rose By Any Other Name...

I don’t know if the following is mildly amusing or seriously alarming. You decide.

The Streaming Media East show is currently underway in New York City and the IAB has taken advantage of the event to promote the development of streaming ads – a noble endeavor, by all means. The IAB even hosted a roundtable yesterday, entitled "Branding Meets Action through Interactive Broadcasting: A Primer on Streaming Ads for Media Buyers and Advertisers."

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, here’s the part that attracted this nitpicking cynic’s attention: the IAB suggests that what we’ve come to know and love as “streaming media” is really “Interactive Broadcasting.”

Why? Apparently, the organization conducted research among over 500 executives, 70% of whom work for ad agencies with primary responsibility in the media buying, planning and supervisory categories, and – get this – 79% of those executives agreed that changing the term “Streaming Media” to “Interactive Broadcasting” was a good idea in order to “distinguish between offline and online advertising and clearly define the evolving medium.”

I’m probably missing something here. If nearly 4 out of 5 advertising professionals out there are unsure about whether “streaming media” relates to offline or online advertising, we’ve got bigger problems than attracting advertisers to the streaming channel. Call me an optimist, but I refuse to believe our industry is that ignorant.

Be that as it may, IAB President & CEO Greg Stuart said in the official press release that the organization’s intent in re-branding streaming media to the “more inclusive, and accurate Interactive Broadcasting,” was twofold. First, he said, it recognizes the growing importance of the category as a very viable option for advertisers and agencies. Second, he said, the terminology is “more consistent with the way in which media is bought, immediately defining exactly what streaming ads are to agencies and advertisers.”

Again, I’m probably missing something, but does terminology really have anything do with the fact that advertisers aren’t incorporating streaming elements into their interactive campaigns? Or are they staying away because the channel is unproven in its effectiveness, plagued by broadband and standardization issues and not used widely enough by consumers to justify the expenditure of ad dollars? According to the most recent and rather extensive streaming media report from Arbitron and Edison Media Research, only 35% of the entire U.S. population have EVER watched/listened to streaming audio/video.

Nah! It must be the terminology. I feel much better now that it's changed, don't you?

Next story loading loading..